U.S. Leadership Fails Ukraine, Emboldens Russia

Russia's military is slaughtering Ukrainians by the hundreds. Bodies are piling up in makeshift graves. Russian missiles kill children, infants. Hospitals and maternity wards are targeted by the barbaric invaders. The brutal atrocities are on a level not witnessed in Europe since World War II. 

Americans are seeing televised images of the bloody massacre of innocent civilians. The grim footage is changing the public's view of the war. A new Monmouth University survey indicates more Americans believe the Biden Administration is not doing enough to help Ukraine.

The shift in public opinion has prompted President Biden to belatedly dispatch more arms and heavy artillery.  Last week Mr. Biden announced another $800 million in weapons and ammunition. However, by the time the weaponry arrives on the battlefield, Ukraine may have been destroyed and defeated.

Despite the aid, the president and former U.S. leaders deserve partial blame for the continuing horrific killing in Ukraine. For decades, American presidents sought diplomatic accommodation to appease Valdymir Putin. The Russian bully is not swayed by detente nor does he abide by agreements.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously presented the Russian ambassador with a plastic, red reset button to signal a new era of cooperation in 2009. The gesture generated Russian mockery instead of cooperation. There have been far worse policy mistakes for certain.   

President Barrack Obama and then VP Joe Biden were reluctant to confront Putin's public declaration that the dictator planned to reclaim lost territory once part of the Soviet Union.  When Russia invaded the Crimea region in 2014, the Ukraine government begged for arms, mortar and antitank missiles. 

In response, Secretary of State John Kerry announced an aid package of $16.4 million to be used to "buy basic items like blankets and clothing, along with counseling for traumatized civilians to help those who fled the fighting."  Mr. Obama stubbornly refused to provide weapons or lethal military gear.

Fact-checkers have tried to rewrite history by claiming Mr. Obama not only sent blankets, but weapons.  However, around $15 million in weaponry was not approved until Russia had already annexed Ukraine. Facts, not faux fact-checkers, confirm the arms arrived too late to stop the Russians. 

The weakness of U.S. allies was on full display during the Crimean crisis. European leaders, afraid of Russian retribution, watched from the sidelines, content to allow Putin to steal part of a sovereign country. Russian aggression was met with surrender by the United States and its allies.

In the run-up to the Ukraine invasion, Russia positioned tens of thousands of troops around Ukraine's eastern border. Last April the White House mulled over a $60 million weapons package for Ukraine, which included the much sought-after Javelin surface-to-air missiles. Mr. Biden punted the decision.

On October 27 of last year, National Intelligence director Avril Haines warned the White House that the Russian military was poised to attack by the end of January of this year.  Again Mr. Biden considered a new $200 million weapons commitment but concluded it would not deter Putin.

This dithering by the president persuaded Putin the U.S. would not support Ukraine.  Once an invasion appeared imminent, Mr. Biden made a series of statements that sent mixed signals.  He immediately proclaimed there would be "no boots on the ground" in Ukraine.  

Instead of confronting Putin, his words communicated reluctance to challenge  Russia. The president should have said "every option" is on the table if the Russians invade. He could have orchestrated a NATO military exercise on the European continent.  Putin may have had second thoughts.  

Mr. Biden made it clear he feared any direct confrontation with Russia.  After the war began, Mr. Biden ended a prepared speech with the off-the-cuff comment that Putin "cannot remain in power."  It showed a whiff of strength. The White House press secretary went into damage control.

The president's comment was walked back by Jen Psaki as she has done with so many of Mr. Biden's unscripted missteps.  In January before the invasion, the president assured that a "minor incursion" into Ukraine would not require the sort of response demanded by a major strike. 

After the baffling remark, Psaki quickly issued a statement than any Russian military invasion would be met with a swift response. Ukrainian officials rebuffed Mr. Biden's remark with this sharply worded response: "There is no minor, middle or major invasion.  An invasion is an invasion."

Putin may be a madman, but he only respects power.  When the president of the world's superpower has to be corrected by his press secretary, don't you think Putin took the measure of Mr. Biden?  Putin expected sanctions would follow, but he also recognized Mr. Biden was a feckless leader.

Biden defenders believe no amount of strong language would have mattered. Sadly,  the nation will never know. What should be clear is that Russia does not intend to stop its aggression with Ukraine.  It has its sights set on other so-called "breakaway" former Soviet vassals.  

There are lessons that Europe and America should have learned from World War II.  When a tyrant is left unchecked in the takeover of a single country, it just wets the appetite for further conquests.  If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, the U.S. and its European allies may yet face a wider war.  

Biden's Blame Game For Skyrocketing Gas Prices

President Biden's speech on banning Russian energy was littered with misrepresentations about the oil crisis.  Mr. Biden blamed petroleum firms for excessive oil prices while denying his administration's war on oil and gas was partly responsible.  

Before the announcement, Press Secretary Jen Psaki had spent days brushing off suggestions the president had any intention of sanctioning Russian oil. Her explanation was a ban would pump up gas prices, which would impact Americans.  Her boss wanted to hurt Putin not Americans, she said. 

So why did the president pivot? Mr. Biden was not only being pressured by his own party, but an overwhelming majority of Americans support a ban.  A Wall Street Journal poll prior to the Biden ban found 79% of registered voters, including 88% of Democrats, favored sanctions on Russian oil. 

After finally bowing to political pressure, Mr. Biden savaged Putin in his announcement but saved some of his indignation for the American oil industry.  Here are the three most egregious distortions of the facts from his March 8 speech. Quotes from the official version released by The White House:

"First, it's simply not true that my administration or policies are holding back domestic energy production"

During his first days in office,  President Biden signed executive orders implementing sweeping changes in energy policy.  The chief executive halted new oil and gas leasing and permits on federal lands and offshore.  He also paused the leasing programs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Wyoming.

In addition, the president withdrew permits of the Keystone XL pipeline.  Psaki keeps reminding the media there is no crude in the pipeline, therefore, shutting down construction has no impact. Her explanation may be technically correct, but it's grossly misleading.   

Construction was expected to be completed this year on the $9 billion pipeline from Canada to Nebraska.  Estimates are the pipeline will have the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil every day to the U.S.  But Biden's administration went even further than Keystone, 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signaled it would reconsider pipeline projects, which would delay the permitting process for natural gas and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) infrastructure. These measures are handcuffing oil and gas producers. 

Perhaps, the most harmful blow to American gas and oil producers was an International Energy Agency report calling for the world to stop drilling for gas and oil immediately.  The report, embraced by the Biden Administration, has ignited an activist movement to strangle investment in oil and natural gas.

Administration supporters have targeted institutional investors, banks and large pension funds to halt oil and gas investments. Shareholder activists put a bullseye on Exxon Mobil, after it announced a hike in oil exploration last year.  Other big oil companies are being hectored to invest less in fossil fuels. 

The activists have succeeded in turning off the spigot for oil producers while instilling uncertainty in the oil industry's future. Without assurances the administration will avoid imposing even harsher restrictions, producers will be hesitant to ramp up exploration or to build new pipelines.

To further discourage exploration and production, Democrats led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have introduced legislation to impose a new tax to punish oil companies. The senator justified the tax as a way to curb what she termed "Big Oil profiteering."

Is there more evidence needed as proof Democrats and their leader President Biden have used everything at their disposal to hobble the oil and gas industry and discourage production? 

"Second this crisis is a stark reminder: To protect our economy over the long term, we need to become energy independent."  

This sound bite suggests Mr. Biden wants America to start producing more energy immediately.  But that is not reality.  His plan is to transition to clean energy, primarily wind turbines and solar. Few oppose clean energy, but the transition will take years if not decades.

In the interim, what is the plan to supply enough energy to run American businesses and supply electricity and gas to households? Higher prices will not only damage the economy but will be a tax on those who can least afford to fill up their vehicles and heat and cool their homes. 

When Mr. Biden came into office, the U.S. was energy independent. For the first time in 50 years, America was producing more oil than it consumed.  The U.S. had a 4% surplus of domestic oil and natural gas production for export. Since then, domestic oil and gas production has fallen to a 4% deficit.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that in February of 2020, before the pandemic, America's crude oil production averaged 12,826 barrels a day.  In 2021, the daily production of crude oil never reached 12,000 barrels. 

If the U.S. was energy independent, the nation could mitigate the world's oil and gas turmoil.  Prices at the pump would still rise because the price of crude oil is set on the global market, however, the U.S. would be more insulated from dramatic spikes by relying on American production rather than foreign sources.    

"They (oil companies) have 9,000 permits to drill now.  They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year.  They have 9,000 to drill onshore that are already approved."

Mr. Biden is either ill informed about the nature of permitting or is deliberately obfuscating the issue to blame oil companies for high gas prices. Oil producers currently hold 9,173 approved permits to drill on federal and Indian lands. Many of the permits were issued under President Trump.

Mr. Biden and Psaki both used the permit issue to create the impression that oil companies are deliberately avoiding drilling. Permits do not guarantee the leased lands hold enough oil to be economically feasible to drill.   In any case, holding a permit is just the first step.

Before drilling for oil, producers must locate an existing pipeline or build a new one to connect to the existing pipeline. Rigs, crews and other equipment must be secured.  Mr. Biden and Psaki made it seem oil companies could just flip a switch and crude oil would gush from the ground.

Thousands of unused permits are not uncommon.  It happens under every presidential administration.  This is not a new phenomena.  Oil companies have more than 24 million acres under lease today, but close to one-half are not producing oil.  

Mr. Biden's use of the permit data is sheer political chicanery.    

Gas prices had rocketed to new highs in the U.S. before the Russian invasion. When Mr. Biden took office, the price of a regular gallon of gas at the pump was $2.39.  It had been as low as $1.80 in May of 2020.  Long before Putin's invasion, gasoline hit $3.39 a gallon on February 2 of this year. 

Prices for a barrel of West Texas Crude were $55 when Mr. Biden moved into the Oval Office.  By February 2, prices had swollen to $88.26 a barrel, a hike of 60.4%. 

Some administration officials and Democratic Party progressives believe steep gas prices will prompt more Americans to switch to electric cars.  They view the run up in price as a welcome development. These tin-earred politicians have no regard for the inflationary impact on average Americans.      

No doubt Putin's war triggered higher oil prices.  But Mr. Biden's policies had already fueled a 61% increase in gasoline. If the Biden Administration continues to hamstring oil and gas production, the economic pain will worsen for average Americans.  Blaming Putin and oil companies is not a solution.